11-15-2006, 10:57 PM
Tribune Op-ed, 15 Nov 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Demand for new states
Centre has to evolve criteria
by Shastri Ramachandran
AT a time when it is fashionable to trash all that is Nehruvian, if there is one legacy of free Indiaâs first Prime Minister that endures as a symbol of Shining India, it is the linguistic states that were created under his leadership.
True, the reorganisation of states along linguistic lines was not Jawaharlal Nehruâs idea; nor was he enthusiastic about it. The fact that it was advocated by Mahatma Gandhi and adopted as an article of faith by the Indian National Congress did little to make Nehru change his mind. Nehruâs party had formed Pradesh Congress Committees on the linguistic principle some 25 years before the report of the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was implemented on November 1, 1956.
Although Nehru had strong and valid reservations about the Congress party delivering on this pre-Independence promise made by Gandhi, he bowed to the demand; in fact, after Potti Sriramulu fasted unto death for the creation of Andhra, the political upheaval that followed left Nehru â for all his reluctance â with little choice in the matter. In opposing the creation of states on the basis of language, Nehru - as also other Congress leaders â based their reasoning on the effects of the Partition. They felt that it would be ruinous for the unity of new India to compound the religious division with a linguistic demarcation.
Against his better judgment, Nehru acted on the SRC report; had he resisted, he could have counted on the support of a number of other stalwarts, and it would never have been implemented. Therefore, the credit for the reorganisation of states is owed to Nehru, and Govind Ballabh Pant.
Fifty years on, the constitutional and federal structure founded on linguistic states, as the great equaliser that unified British India and Royal India as one political entity remains unquestionably vindicated by history. Fears that the linguistic states would spawn fissiparous tendencies and lead to balkanisation of the country have been proved to be wrong. Far from fomenting divisiveness, the states have deepened democracy and strengthened the Union as well as its federal content.
On the contrary, in retrospect, these states may well have eliminated the ground for fomenting parochial political mischief. In fact, the statutory importance accorded by this reorganisation to the linguistic cultures as well as the languages of the respective states have reinforced the diversity of democracy and participatory freedom.
No democratic experiment is without its problems and the creation of linguistic states is no exception. <b>However, the contests and conflicts between different, especially neighbouring states, though coloured by the language of the parties involved are not linguistic in their origin. The Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is not a fight between Tamils and Kannadigas, though politics, at times, makes it appear so. Essentially, it is a tug-of-war between the water users â the farmers over (seasonal) availability and management of a scarce resource. An inventive approach that unites the water users across the two states and empowers them to decide on the sharing of Cauvery waters may rid the issue of the parochial connotations it has acquired because of competitive party politics.</b>
Similarly, both Punjab and Haryana, formed in 1966, are claimants for Chandigarh â a city that may be said to represent both the best and worst of these two states. It is an aspiration for a prized territory and no linguistic issue is involved.
<b>No doubt, there are linguistic rationalisations for the dispute over Belgaum or Kasargod. But the fact that the states concerned have lived with this and are not unrelentingly agitated about their ârightful dueâ underscores the larger unity of purpose by which these linguistic cultures are actuated.</b>
No reflection on the theme of language and democracy in the Indian Union can exclude a reference to the anti-Hindi agitation that rocked Tamil Nadu in the 1960s and the sons-of-the-soil policy that some states resort to in education and employment.
<b>The anti-Hindi agitation was neither for Tamil (the language of Tamil Nadu) nor against Hindi (one of the Unionâs two languages for administration). The problem was (wanting) English: Tamil Nadu wanted English to be continued as the language of administration; the opposition was to âHindi imperialismâ and not to the Hindi language. For years, if not decades, the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha prided itself on enrolling the largest proportion of Hindi learners who passed the language courses.</b>
The people of Tamil Nadu, like those in other southern states, are open to learning any language â not just English and Hindi but of computers, too â if that improves their educational and employment prospects. They have been among the most mobile linguistic groups who wanted the advantage of Hindi as a matter of choice and not a handicap imposed by political coercion.
<b>The sons-of-the-soil policy may be seen as the domestic variant of the protectionism that every economy seeks for those in a particular cultural habitat. This is more the result of uneven development and skewed distribution of the benefits of industrialisation and growth. This is not âethnificationâ in any parochial sense but a struggle for the rights â and fruits - of development. An implicit acknowledgement of this being so is manifest in the creation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal in 2003.</b>
There was no linguistic criteria applied for creating these states, which were the result of the most significant change made to state boundaries after 1971, when the North-East was reorganised. <b>The reorganisation of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was primarily intended to address economic issues. No doubt, cultural distinctiveness was also an argument to justify the demand for new states as being essential to overcome the neglect they had suffered as part of the larger states from which they were carved out.</b>
<b>These states being the result of popular movements has revived other demands for separate states in a more aggressive manner. The demand for Telengana has gained as a serious political and electoral issue affecting national and state parties. Similar articulations may catch on for Vidharbha (Maharashtra), Bodoland (Assam), Harit Pradesh (UP) and Gorkhaland (West Bengal) if it is perceived to hold the promise of political dividend.</b>
In the absence of a defined criterion for creating new states, the Centre and national parties may find themselves in a bind. Before events overtake the Centre and popular pressure makes it give in to these demands, it should set up a second states reorganisation commission to draft a policy that would lay down the basis for new states. The demands for new, and smaller, states are bound to gather momentum, sooner rather than later. Whether as a response to popular demand or a containment strategy, the Centre can no longer ignore these aspirations until they explode, with disruptive consequences, on the national agenda.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Demand for new states
Centre has to evolve criteria
by Shastri Ramachandran
AT a time when it is fashionable to trash all that is Nehruvian, if there is one legacy of free Indiaâs first Prime Minister that endures as a symbol of Shining India, it is the linguistic states that were created under his leadership.
True, the reorganisation of states along linguistic lines was not Jawaharlal Nehruâs idea; nor was he enthusiastic about it. The fact that it was advocated by Mahatma Gandhi and adopted as an article of faith by the Indian National Congress did little to make Nehru change his mind. Nehruâs party had formed Pradesh Congress Committees on the linguistic principle some 25 years before the report of the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was implemented on November 1, 1956.
Although Nehru had strong and valid reservations about the Congress party delivering on this pre-Independence promise made by Gandhi, he bowed to the demand; in fact, after Potti Sriramulu fasted unto death for the creation of Andhra, the political upheaval that followed left Nehru â for all his reluctance â with little choice in the matter. In opposing the creation of states on the basis of language, Nehru - as also other Congress leaders â based their reasoning on the effects of the Partition. They felt that it would be ruinous for the unity of new India to compound the religious division with a linguistic demarcation.
Against his better judgment, Nehru acted on the SRC report; had he resisted, he could have counted on the support of a number of other stalwarts, and it would never have been implemented. Therefore, the credit for the reorganisation of states is owed to Nehru, and Govind Ballabh Pant.
Fifty years on, the constitutional and federal structure founded on linguistic states, as the great equaliser that unified British India and Royal India as one political entity remains unquestionably vindicated by history. Fears that the linguistic states would spawn fissiparous tendencies and lead to balkanisation of the country have been proved to be wrong. Far from fomenting divisiveness, the states have deepened democracy and strengthened the Union as well as its federal content.
On the contrary, in retrospect, these states may well have eliminated the ground for fomenting parochial political mischief. In fact, the statutory importance accorded by this reorganisation to the linguistic cultures as well as the languages of the respective states have reinforced the diversity of democracy and participatory freedom.
No democratic experiment is without its problems and the creation of linguistic states is no exception. <b>However, the contests and conflicts between different, especially neighbouring states, though coloured by the language of the parties involved are not linguistic in their origin. The Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is not a fight between Tamils and Kannadigas, though politics, at times, makes it appear so. Essentially, it is a tug-of-war between the water users â the farmers over (seasonal) availability and management of a scarce resource. An inventive approach that unites the water users across the two states and empowers them to decide on the sharing of Cauvery waters may rid the issue of the parochial connotations it has acquired because of competitive party politics.</b>
Similarly, both Punjab and Haryana, formed in 1966, are claimants for Chandigarh â a city that may be said to represent both the best and worst of these two states. It is an aspiration for a prized territory and no linguistic issue is involved.
<b>No doubt, there are linguistic rationalisations for the dispute over Belgaum or Kasargod. But the fact that the states concerned have lived with this and are not unrelentingly agitated about their ârightful dueâ underscores the larger unity of purpose by which these linguistic cultures are actuated.</b>
No reflection on the theme of language and democracy in the Indian Union can exclude a reference to the anti-Hindi agitation that rocked Tamil Nadu in the 1960s and the sons-of-the-soil policy that some states resort to in education and employment.
<b>The anti-Hindi agitation was neither for Tamil (the language of Tamil Nadu) nor against Hindi (one of the Unionâs two languages for administration). The problem was (wanting) English: Tamil Nadu wanted English to be continued as the language of administration; the opposition was to âHindi imperialismâ and not to the Hindi language. For years, if not decades, the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha prided itself on enrolling the largest proportion of Hindi learners who passed the language courses.</b>
The people of Tamil Nadu, like those in other southern states, are open to learning any language â not just English and Hindi but of computers, too â if that improves their educational and employment prospects. They have been among the most mobile linguistic groups who wanted the advantage of Hindi as a matter of choice and not a handicap imposed by political coercion.
<b>The sons-of-the-soil policy may be seen as the domestic variant of the protectionism that every economy seeks for those in a particular cultural habitat. This is more the result of uneven development and skewed distribution of the benefits of industrialisation and growth. This is not âethnificationâ in any parochial sense but a struggle for the rights â and fruits - of development. An implicit acknowledgement of this being so is manifest in the creation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal in 2003.</b>
There was no linguistic criteria applied for creating these states, which were the result of the most significant change made to state boundaries after 1971, when the North-East was reorganised. <b>The reorganisation of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was primarily intended to address economic issues. No doubt, cultural distinctiveness was also an argument to justify the demand for new states as being essential to overcome the neglect they had suffered as part of the larger states from which they were carved out.</b>
<b>These states being the result of popular movements has revived other demands for separate states in a more aggressive manner. The demand for Telengana has gained as a serious political and electoral issue affecting national and state parties. Similar articulations may catch on for Vidharbha (Maharashtra), Bodoland (Assam), Harit Pradesh (UP) and Gorkhaland (West Bengal) if it is perceived to hold the promise of political dividend.</b>
In the absence of a defined criterion for creating new states, the Centre and national parties may find themselves in a bind. Before events overtake the Centre and popular pressure makes it give in to these demands, it should set up a second states reorganisation commission to draft a policy that would lay down the basis for new states. The demands for new, and smaller, states are bound to gather momentum, sooner rather than later. Whether as a response to popular demand or a containment strategy, the Centre can no longer ignore these aspirations until they explode, with disruptive consequences, on the national agenda.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->